Whose better in there Prime Steve Nash or Chris Paul?

Question

because i think its nash.

Answer 1

cp3 hasn't hit his prime ans nash was really good so we have to wait and see

Answer 2

nash cuase he can hit an outside shot.

Answer 3

Paul is not even close to his prime.

Nash is in his prime but can't carry his team to the NBA Finals.

Note: If Amare and Paul become teammate, their will gonna be more highlight than Nash and Amare.

Answer 4

Paul has been in the league for only three seasons (and hasn't even started his prime years) and is already an MVP candidate. It took Nash 5 years to get any playing time.

Nash's career high in points is 18.9 which took tens seasons to get to, and he has decreased ever since. his high in assist is 11.6 which took him 11 seasons.

Chris Paul's are 21.1 and 11.6 which he achieved last year in his third.

So based off that i gotta go with Paul.

I don't think Paul will be the perimeter shooter Nash is... few are... but he is already a better defender and distributor and leader, as he's running a team years before Nash did.

Answer 5

i think its nash too good on assists and he made a clutch three on the mavs game  

Answer 6

chris paul isnt even in his prime yet

Answer 7

Can't tell you yet. Paul is not in his prime.

Answer 8

nash cp3 has yet to hit his prime

Answer 9

Dude,Chris Paul averages 21 and 11 and he isn't even in his prime yet.

Answer 10

hows this i would take chris paul now than steve nash in his prime, needless to say i would take a prime cp3 over a prime nash.

heres why:

you can say that the past seasons with the suns have been nash at his best. he certainly wasn't this good when he was with the mavs. he scored less he got less assists while he was with dallas. granted the guys aren't weren't that athletic, so nash comes over to phoenix ( a team that is an all offensive squad with super athletic guys), simply an offense that doesn't require an elite point guard, an offense that will infate your stats (if you dont believe me look at marion, when he was with phoenix versus when he was "the man" in miami w/out wade.

but i will continue as if his time in phoenix was nash's prime. nash averaged 3 more assists in his FIRST YEAR IN phoenix than his previous year in amare.

yes nash is a very eficient scorer. shoots over 50% from the field 40% from three and 90% at the line, superb numbers shooting wise. but remember this, this is an offense where offense comes at will.

i will  admit that nash is very efficient, hands down no agrument.

granted nash has goten hte most out of amare stoumire, but i wouldn't say he made this guy an all star. amare was always tremendously gifted, he always had more talent than lets say david west ( who paul made an all star, takes more skill turning him to an all s tar verssus amare. ). ok so scoring wise whos better based on what ive said. paul or nash, paul scores more but shoots 16% less however he doesn't have te supporting cast that nash does. paul has to do it all. and in the playoffs, both PGs played the suns, paul shot 50% better than nash, averaged more assists (3 more) while being more efficient with the ball.

and im taling about a paul that hasn't even hit his prime yet.

so moving on to passing, reember how i said paul was more efficient, well in the season he averaged more assists while turning the ball 1 time less than nash. thats efficiency. did paul have super athletic guys that nash did in amare? no he didn't. did paul have a team that averaged the 3rd most points per game? no he din't the hornets were ranked 16th in the league in scoring. so to average more asists on a team that scores less more than soldifies that he is better than nash at his prime. oh and for the record last year nash averaged the same number of assits as paul did this year and guess what, he turned the ball over 1 time more than paul did.

bottom line pauls more efficient passsing the rock.

defensively: this is a no contest,. nash is a poor defender man to man, and awful at stealing. he averages less than a steal per game and paul averaged 3 times that amount.

so advantage paul.

ok with my reasoning i would take paul right now than nash at his prime. and if you think taht my reasoning could go both wise, like nash is a better scorer or what not. think about how gd paul will be in 3 years. think about what if paul, who is more efficient with the ball, playred with as good as an offense as nash. imagine how many assists he would get.

bottom line paul is better than nash ever was